COVID-19 infection and vaccine have no impact on in-vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome

Abstract

To investigate the effect of COVID-19 infection or vaccine on IVF outcome. This is a multicenter retrospective study. Data were collected from all patients treated in the ART units between September and November 2021 after the vaccination of the general population began. Medical records of all patients who had IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized into four groups: previously infected by COVID-19, vaccinated by COVID vaccine, previously infected and vaccinated, or neither infected nor vaccinated. Total number of participants 151 (vaccinated only 66, infected only 18, vaccinated and previously infected 34, and control 33. Outcomes (ET on day of trigger, number of oocytes retrieved, quality of oocytes, number of fertilized oocytes, number and quality of embryos, number of embryos transferred, number of embryos frozen, implantation rate and clinical pregnancy rate) were compared between these four groups. Moreover, we compared the outcome before and post infection, as well as before and post vaccine in a group of patients. No evidence was found to suggest that COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine adversely affects Clinical pregnancy rates (positive fetal heartbeat) (OR 0.9, CI 0.5–1.9, OR 1.8, CI 0.9–3.6, respectively) and the following parameters: fertilization rate, implantation rate, positive bHcg) (OR 0.9, CI 0.5–1.8, OR 1.5, CI 0.7–2.9, respectively). Although a limitation of our study is the small comparison groups, and the wide confidence intervals in the Odds Ratio estimates.

Effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on IVF/ICSI-ET outcomes: A propensity score-matched cohort study

“…Therefore, when the new SARS-CoV-2 virus emerged and spread globally, researchers focused on the impact of infection with this virus on human reproduction and ART outcomes [5]. The effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the laboratory and clinical outcomes of ART have not yet been consistently documented in the literature [14,[29][30][31]. An unclear infection status, the inability to correctly measure the time between SARS-CoV-2 infection and ART treatment, and the absence of a strati cation analysis on the time of oocyte retrieval relative to SARS-CoV-2 infection could all be contributing factors.…”

Impact of prior coronavirus disease 2019 infection in females on assisted reproductive outcomes: A systematic review with meta‐analysis

“…Among the included studies, 12 reported the number of oocytes retrieved, comprising 536 infected versus 677 uninfected cycles. 14,15,24,[26][27][28][29]31,32,[34][35][36] The mean oocyte number was estimated to be 10.67 versus 10.61 (MD = 0.06; 95% CI: −0.75-0.88; p = .88) after meta-analysis (Figure 3A). Six studies (n = 517) provided information on the number of fertilized oocytes, 14,26,27,31,35,36 and a significant increase was noticed in the infected group (MD = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.20-1.38; p = .008) (Figure 3D).…”

“…14,15,24,[26][27][28][29]31,32,[34][35][36] The mean oocyte number was estimated to be 10.67 versus 10.61 (MD = 0.06; 95% CI: −0.75-0.88; p = .88) after meta-analysis (Figure 3A). Six studies (n = 517) provided information on the number of fertilized oocytes, 14,26,27,31,35,36 and a significant increase was noticed in the infected group (MD = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.20-1.38; p = .008) (Figure 3D). The pooled results of the other laboratory parameters were comparable in the number of mature oocytes (8 studies; MD = −0.29; 95% CI: −1.65-1.06; p = .67), 14,15,[26][27][28][29]31,36 oocyte maturation rate (five studies; MD = −3.20; 95% CI: −7.43-1.04; p = .14), 14,15,28,34,36 fertilization rate (five studies; MD = 1.97; 95% CI: −1.54-5.48; p = .27), 14,26,28,34,36 number of good-quality embryos (four studies; MD = −0.60; 95% CI: −2.32-1.12; p = .50), 14,24,35,36 and good-quality embryo rate (three studies; MD = −14.76; 95% CI: −33.99-4.47; p = .13) 14,…”

“…Six studies (n = 517) provided information on the number of fertilized oocytes, 14,26,27,31,35,36 and a significant increase was noticed in the infected group (MD = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.20-1.38; p = .008) (Figure 3D). The pooled results of the other laboratory parameters were comparable in the number of mature oocytes (8 studies; MD = −0.29; 95% CI: −1.65-1.06; p = .67), 14,15,[26][27][28][29]31,36 oocyte maturation rate (five studies; MD = −3.20; 95% CI: −7.43-1.04; p = .14), 14,15,28,34,36 fertilization rate (five studies; MD = 1.97; 95% CI: −1.54-5.48; p = .27), 14,26,28,34,36 number of good-quality embryos (four studies; MD = −0.60; 95% CI: −2.32-1.12; p = .50), 14,24,35,36 and good-quality embryo rate (three studies; MD = −14.76; 95% CI: −33.99-4.47; p = .13) 14,15,36 (Figure 3B,C,E-G). Among the above seven comparisons, the heterogeneity was identified as low in most outcomes, except for the number and rate of good-quality embryos, whose I 2 were 70% and 77%, respectively.…”

“…These studies were distributed in eight countries including China, Israel, the USA, Argentina, Italy, Spain, Russia and Jordan, and all were published between 2021 and 2022. Most of these studies (n = 10) employed a retrospective cohort design 14,[25][26][27]29,30,[32][33][34][35] and five were prospective cohorts. 15,24,28,31,36 All studies were single-centre except for the studies by Youngster et al 34 and Albeitawi et al, 26 whose participants were enrolled from two centres.…”